beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 64,00, KRW 61,919,00 for Plaintiff B, and KRW 128,128,00 for Plaintiff C and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Defendant entered into an officetel supply contract. The Defendant’s officetel in Bupyeong-si E (hereinafter “instant officetel”).
The Plaintiffs are the building owner of the instant officetel. The Plaintiffs are the suppliers of the instant instant supply contract with the Defendant regarding each heading of the said officetel (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).
(2) On June 12, 2013, Plaintiff A’s total supply amount of heading room A (806,96 million won) and Plaintiff B (86,66 million won on June 12, 2013, Plaintiff C (1602, 1702, 89,66 million won on July 4, 2013) and the Defendant’s terms and conditions related to the instant claim among the terms and conditions of the contract written by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant at the time of the instant supply contract are as follows.
(hereinafter referred to as “A” means the Plaintiffs, the supplier, and “B,” as the contractor). [The scheduled date of occupancy of the actual accounts: Article 2(Cancellation of Contract) of February 2014 (if a certain change is made according to the process, later notification) “B” may cancel this contract if it is impossible to move into within three months from the scheduled date of occupancy due to the cause attributable to “A”.
When the contract is terminated on the grounds falling under Article 3(Penalty)(3), "A" shall pay 10% of the total amount of the supply price paid by "B" to "B" as penalty.
B. Under each supply contract of this case, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the supply price (65% of the total supply price) with the exception of the remainder for each of the units of the instant officetels as follows.
Plaintiff A 806,9280,000 won, Plaintiff B 602,000 won, Plaintiff C 1602,629,000 won, KRW 4,9282,00 won, KRW 5,629,00 won, KRW 4,9280,00 won, KRW 11,648,00 won, KRW 1702,000 won, KRW 4,9280,00 won, KRW 1702,9280,00 won, KRW 1702,9280,00 won.
C. The Do of the scheduled occupancy date and the Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant officetel on June 27, 2014, which was three months after February 2014, which was the scheduled occupancy date under each supply contract of this case.